SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 


?-73 SPEECH 


HON. ABRAM COMINGO, 

OF MISSOURI, 


THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF 
THE UNITED STATES, 



DECEMBER 12, 1873. 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

■ 1 873 . 





SPEECH 


R 0 N. 


OP 

A B 11 AR C 0 M I N G 0 , 


The House havinji under consideration the hill (H. K. Xo. 471) to repeal the in¬ 
crease of certain salaries and to regulate the same, and to cover undrawn and 
returned balances into the Treasury— 

Mr. COMINGO said: 

Mr. Speaker : I propose to vote for the bill under consideration, or 
for one of similar tendency. I think it may be greatly improved, but I 
shall vote for it, if necessary, without modification or amendment. 
This I shall do in obedience to what I believe to be the wilTof the con¬ 
stituency I represent; not that I believe tlie compensation now allowed 
members of Congress and others aftectedby the provisions of this bill 
too great, for I do not; but because the subject on which we are at¬ 
tempting to legislate is one of those in relation to which the people 
have an unquestionable and a pre-eminent right to demand definite 
action, and in relation to which tlieir known wishes must be heeded 
regardless of the ojiinions and preferences of their Representatives. 
I think, however, and shall attempt to show, that the public senti¬ 
ment that has been created on this subject is most unjust, and that it 
is the result of gross, if not willful and malicious, misrepresentation. 
Be this as it may, there is no doubt that the iieople demand a 
reduction of the salaries now allowed certain Government officials, 
and of the compensation allowed members of Congress. 

While I am not only willing, but regard it as my duty, to yield to 
these demands in this behalf, I also regard it as my privilege to pre¬ 
sent and vindicate my own views and action touching the obnoxious 
legislation, and to verify what I have i)remised with reference to the 
prevailing x)ublic sentiment. 

I.am not, Mr. Speaker, unmindful of the fact that men listen im¬ 
patiently, if they listen at all, to the words of those with whom they 
seriously and widely difter, and that they turn a deaf ear to argu¬ 
ments in support of a measure they have denounced, or the defense 
of an act they have condemned. Experience teaches us that opinions 
once formed, however hastily, become fixed, if not immovable, when 
combated by those who from any cause have incurred our displeas¬ 
ure. It matters but little in Avhat manner, to what extent, or on 
what account the actual or supposed offense may have been given, 
arguments and appeals and exi)lanations are seldom heeded, but are 
generally misrepresented and ridiculed, and nnceremoniously de¬ 
nounced as luiworthy of consideration, and with their authors are 
buried beneath an avalanche of opprobrium. This method of dispos¬ 
ing of a subject is convenient, but it has not the merit of being the 
fairest .and niost satisfactory that might be adopted in the prosecu¬ 
tion of an inquiry after truth. It ])resu])poses purity of purpose and 



4 


infallibility of judgment on the ]>art of those who aecnse and con¬ 
demn, and an impartial exercise of the high prerogative they assume. 
Not even the worst passions and prejudices that ever embittered par¬ 
tisan strife will tolerate such a presumption. 

I therefore, Mr. Speaker, feel constrained and encouraged to come 
before those Avith Avhom I ha\x dared to dilfer, before those by Avhoin 
all who ha\'e exercised this prhdlege have been unceremoniously and 
unqualifiedly condemned and denounced, and explain the vieAv^s I 
entertained concerning the “salary bill,” as it is called ]>y some, or the 
“salary steal” and “ salary grab” as it is courteously called by others, 
the assumed iniquities of which Ave are about to remoA'e, in obedience 
to the demands of the peo]de, which I have admitted aax^ acting in 
the capacity of Representatives, cannot disregard. 

This I do Avithoiit hesitation, iiotAvithstanding it is a poor privilege 
I claim and enjoy; notwithstanding I have been assured that the 
effort AA'ill proA^e abortive, and that it looks like presumption; not- 
Avithstanding I encounter at the A-ery outset the obstinate prejudices 
that haA^e been engendered by unprecedented misrepresentation and 
false clamor; and notAvithstandiug the inotiA'Cs that noAV impel me, 
as well as those that have hitherto controlled my action, may and 
probably Avill be assailed and impugned aa ith intensified bitterness. 
I alone knoAv Avhat they are and Avhat they haA*e been, and I alone 
am responsible for them. But let them bo searched and tried, as in 
the fire, and let the consequences fall upon me alone. My reasoning 
may haA'C been false, and may luiA^e led me to the commission of a 
great mistake. This, I cheerfully admit, is possible; but I haA’o yet 
ito be convinced that those avIio have shared so freely in the bitter 
denunciations of the press and from the hustings, during the ]uist 
nine months, made a great mistake—much less that they committed 
a crime. Nor do I l)elieA"e that one iu ten of those Avho have been 
most noisy and malignant in their deimiiciations sincerely state their 
oAAUi A’ieAvs as to tlie propriety and effect of the measure they X)rofess 
to condeuiu. 

Be this as it may, there cau be but little doubt that much of AA’liat 
has been Avritten and spoken couceruiug the measure under cousid- 
eratiou is unjust, and that iu many cases it Avas promjded by mo- 
tiA^es the xmrity of Avhich may Avell be doubted. Neither the tenden¬ 
cies nor the effect of the measure that has been so vigorously assailed, 
nor the motiA^es of those Avho faAmred it, at any or all of its stages, 
seem to be correctly understood, or xnojAerly reim'sentcd, or, if so under¬ 
stood, honestly and fairly discussed by those Avho haA'e undertaken to 
enlighten the public mind ux)ou this subject. If they Avere as i)er- 
uicious and dishonorable as represented, the fact, it occurs to my 
mind, might be established more satisfactorily and clearly by sonui 
other method than the mere use of A itui)eratiA'e epithets and scandal¬ 
ous billingsgate. These are not generally considered Aany forcible 
arguments, nor do they ordinarily evince sincere conviction in the 
minds of those aa'Iio use them most vigorously and fluently; nor are 
they often considered marks of honest disapin'obation. If, hoAvever, 
the act and the niotiA^es are correctly giA'en by those Avhose virtuous 
iudignatioii has been so elegantly and clearly signified, the style of 
the argument is a matter of little moment to any one. But if, on 
the other hand, after an impartial and thorough examination of the 
hiAV and its bearings, and a careful inquiry into the inotiA^es of its 
authors, it shall be manifest that the former is not as detrimental to 
the public good, nor the latter dishonorable, as rei)resented, it will 
be difticult to justify the use of the opprobrious epithets in Avliich 


o 


some of tliesoi censors have so extravagantly indulged; and the pre¬ 
sumption will become exceedingly strong that 

These crops of wit and honesty appear 
From envy, malice, hatred, spleen, and fear 
far more tlian from an honest conviction that a wrong has been done, 
or from a sincere desire to promote the public good. 

There are those, however, who are sincere in their condemnation 
of the law referred to, and who, from a misapprehension, as I verily 
believe, of its bearing and its effect are unqualified in their expres¬ 
sions of disapprobation and discontent, and earnest in their condem¬ 
nation of those who gave it their support, or opposed it and there¬ 
after shared in its benefits. With such I have no quarrel, nor do I 
ask them to change or modify their opinions, unless after a re-exami¬ 
nation of the whole subject they shall honestly believe they have 
l)een mistaken in their first conclusions. While it is the duty and 
interest, as well as the privilege, of the peo]>le to closely scrutinize 
tlie acts of their representatives, and hold them to a strict account 
for their misdeeds and mistakes, it is equally their duty and interest 
to deal justly and fairly with them, and govern themselves by the 
l»rinciide8 of the “golden rule ” when they sit in judgment and try 
their public servants. 

That the ]>eople and their representatives should be in perfect ac¬ 
cord at all times, or on all subjects with which the latter may have 
to deal, is morally impossible. However pure may be the motives of 
the representative, he is almost certain to give offense at times to 
those whom he attempts to serve; nothing short of infallibility 
could ])revent him from incurring the displeasure of at least a por¬ 
tion of those whose interests are committed to his hands; and it may 
be doubted whether that degree of perfection would relieve him from 
this unpleasant dilemma. 

When, however, the acts of the representative produce wide-spread 
discontent, and severe and uncharitable criticism, it is, or at all 
events it has heretofore been, his privilege to explain the views and 
motives that controlled him; and the people have heretofore consid- 
(U-ed it their <luty to hear him respectfully before unqualifiedly con¬ 
demning his conduct. This, it appears, is no longer the rule; for pub¬ 
lic servants are now condemned without a hearing, and informed that 
they are absolutely i)resumptuous when they seek to avail themselves 
of that time-honored privilege. 

It is my ])resent purpose, however, Mr. Sjieaker, as already inti¬ 
mated, to show, or at least attempt to show, that the wide-spread 
discontent and the constant clamor that have filled the country for 
months past have been produced in ])art by a willful misrepresenta¬ 
tion and ])artly by a misa])prehension of the facts that should bo 
understood and considered by those who desire to arrive at a correct 
concluvsion in the premises and do simple justice to those concerned. 

None of those who have shared in the scandalous and vulgar abuse 
of the press and the asxiiring and coming patriots, who promise to 
reform the i)resent jiernicious habits and practices of our Govern¬ 
ment officials, and correct the abuses and remedy the evils of the 
past, desire, and none of them will ask, more than a full and fair dis¬ 
cussion of the measure condemned and an unprejudiced exercise of 
judgment in a reconsideration of the facts that bear upon the subject 
and that controlled their action. If they made a mistake, they were 
to that extent unfortunate; if they committed a crime, and are there¬ 
fore thieves and robbers, as declared, they are still more unfortunate ; 
but in either case they may derive much consolation from the fact 


G 




that many of the wisest and best statesmen of the past, whom the 
pooi)lo liave most deli<i;hted to honor, made the same kind of a mis¬ 
take and committed the same crime. And still further consolation 
may he derived from the fact that it appears in these latter days that 
a class of patriots and politicians has risen up whose wisdom anti 
purity are such that they, according' to promises and pretensions, 
cannot make mistakes, and of course will not do wrong, as others 
have done, and as did the fathers whose names have hitherto keen 
household Avords, and Avhose inemories liaA^e hitherto been rcA’^ered 
CA'en l>y their ]tolitical foes. These are “ crumbs of comfort.” But 
let these modernimmaculates— 

Go and in-eteiul their family is young, 

Kor own their fathers Iiave beeii tiiieves so^loiig. 

It is most singular that the true characters of the representative 
men of the past shoiild not haA’e been discovered sooner. That period 
has hitherto been regarded Avith much faAmr, in a moral aspect at 
least. So much so that Ave liaA'e been accustomed to hear it spoken 
of as the better <lays of the Republic,” and to regard it as a kind 
of “golden ago,” the equal glories of Avhich Ave may not ho])e to see. 
But tins AA'as all a mistake. Modern patriots have uiiA'eiled the moral 
deformities of the statesmen and sag^s of the past, and denounced 
them—indirectly at least—as thieA'cs and scoundrels, and branded 
them as felons. 

Although they hurl their denunciations and anathemas at none but 
those Avho favajicd the law referred to or aA'ailed themselves of the 
benelits of its ]>roA'isions, yet, as I Avill shoAv, all their criminal accu¬ 
sations and maliguanb tirades apply Avith as much force to many of 
the most upright and faithful re]>resentatiA"es Avho liaA^e sei'A'cd the 
people Avithin the last three-score years. 

The hiAv that has produced so much discontent, and Avhich, as Avell 
as its authors, has been so bitterly assailed, Ave have been told is in¬ 
famous; and its repeal has been, and is noAv, demanded, for the fol¬ 
lowing reasons: First, because it is unjust and oppressiA'e to the peo¬ 
ple; secondly, because its passage Avas a violation of an express con¬ 
tract betAveeu the ])eople and their representatives, and its enact¬ 
ment, therefore, a felony. If these olqections are Avell founded, or if 
either of them can bo successfully maintained, there can be no doubt 
that the act should be repealed. But if neither is true or Avell taken, 
it folloAvs that a Avonderful clamor and a A'ast amount of slan¬ 
derous accusation luiA^e unnecessarily found their Avay into this Avorld 
of ours, in consequence of AAdiich there ha\’ebeen exliibitions of fear 
and trembling and penitential sorroAAh the like of Avhich hath not 
occurred at any time since panics Avere iirst ordained. 

But, Mr. Speaker, let us inquire Avhether the hiAV about Avhich I am 
talking is unjust and oppressive to the people. 

In order that Ave may ansAA^cr this question fully and fairly, it l)e- 
comes necessary for us to ascertain, as nearly as ])ossible, Avhat is the 
operation or effect of this law on the tinances of the country AA’hen 
considered in connection Avith another laAv enacted at the same 
session, in consequence of Avhich the bill increasing the compensation 
of members of Congress and other GoA'ernment officials Avas, in my 
opinion, first introduced, and Avithout Avhich the House amendment 
to the Senate amendment to the legislative, executive, and judicial 
api)ropriation bill, embodying to some extent the provisions of the 
former bill, AAU)uld not have been adopted. I refer to the act abol¬ 
ishing the franking privilege, approved January 31, 1873. The ne¬ 
cessity of the amendment as it passed the House, and of the laAV as 


t 


it now exists, depends in some measure on the effect the last-men¬ 
tioned act had on the compensation members and others were entitled 
to under the then existing law. Was it more than adequate before 
the abolition of the franking privilege ? and was it adequate after its 
abolition ? were questions it was thought proper to consider—that 
it is now proper to consider—and that influence to a great extent 
views of members. The j)rospective and retrosiiective eftects of 
the two acts on the Government Treasury were also—properly, I 
thought, and still think—taken into consideration; and that we may 
even now consider. But I presume they have been but little consid¬ 
ered or cared for by those who have been most active in their efforts 
to excite popular discontent and avail themselves of this as a means 
of securing popular favor. At all events, I have yet to find one of 
them who has attempted a full and fair discussion of the measure by 
honestly stating what are its provisions and their effect by contrast- 
ting it Avith similar measures of the past; by considering the prece¬ 
dents that haAm been set for such legislation; or by attempting to 
show that it Avas unnecessary, except so far as this may haA'e been 
done, or attempted, by untrue and unsupported assertions and bitter 
and unqualified denunciation. 

Mr. Speaker, before I attempt to iiresent the facts that bear upon, 
and, in my opinion, justified to some extent, the legislation that has 
been so furiously and generally denounced, I beg leaA'^e to state that 
I was absent from the House at the time the proposition to amend 
the Senate amendment to the legislatiA^e, executiA^e, and judicial ap- 
priation bill Avas first made. When the motion to reconsider the vote 
Avhereby that amendment had been rejected came up for considera¬ 
tion, the next day, I was present and A oted against the motion to lay 
the motion to reconsider on the table. I also Amted in faAmr of the 
motion to reconsider. Before these Amtes were taken it was under¬ 
stood, if not agreed upon, that the amendment that had been rejected 
the previous eA^ening should, if the motion to reconsider prevailed, 
be amended by striking out the Avords seven thonsand fiA^e hundred 
and inserting six thonsand fiA^e hundred, and making the latter amount 
in full of all compensation and allowances, except actual traveling 
expenses. Had it not been for this understanding, the motion to re¬ 
consider would not liaA^e preAuiiled. But few members, after the frank¬ 
ing privilege had been cut oft', considered, I apprehend, that their 
compensation was adequate, and there Avere but few of them, I pre¬ 
sume, that did not think some change was necessery, and there were 
but feAV, I imagine, that did not desire it should be made. I desired 
it, belieAdng that it was both necessary and just, and Amted accordingly. 

I then thought and belieA^ed that |fi,.5d0 per annum, Avith actual 
traA^eling expenses in lieu of mileage, would be about equal to the 
compensation alloAved by the act of July 28, 1866, including mileage, 
stationery, &c., as alloAved by the laAvs in force at the time of the 
passage of that act. I am noAV Avell satisfied, hoAvever, that I Avas 
mistaken as to this, and that the compensation of members imder the 
laws that regulated tlieir compensation from and after the passage 
of the act of 1866, Avas better than that proposed by said amendment. 
I was unAvilling at that time to favor an increavse beyond the amoimt 
proposed by the House amendment, to wit, $6,500 per annum, as 
provided in that amendment. The Senate, hoAvever, disagreed Avith 
the House as to this and divers other amendments, Avhich resulted, 
as will be remembered, in the appointment of a committee of confer¬ 
ence, by whom the House amendment Avas struck out, and it Avas rec¬ 
ommended that the sum of $7,500, Avith actual traveling expenses, 


8 


j 


should he paid each Senator, Eepresentative, and Delegate. With 
the opinion I then entertained, I would not have voted for the con¬ 
ference report had I been present at the time the final vote was taken 
in the House. 

An ardent desire for office has no doubt caused some to denounce 
and condemn the act increasing salaries, hoping, at the same time, 
that they might in the future reap the benefits that they profess to 
believe flow from a measure they now characterize as a crime, and 
whose authors they denounce as criminals; benefits, as we shall see, 
that are in a great measure imaginary, and a crime-charge as base¬ 
less as the dream of a lunatic. Let them realize their hopes if they 
can, and let the country enjoy the benefits that may be derived from 
their wisdom in council and purity in action. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I desire to examine this much-cursed law, and 
discover, if possible, its effect and tendency financially, both as to 
the people and their Eepresentatives, and to ascertain whether it is, 
as charged, unjust and oi)pressive to the former, and materially 
beneficial to the latter. 

In order to arrive at a correct conclusion on these points, I propose 
to show in this connection what the Forty-third Congress would 
probably have cost the people under the provisions of the law in 
force at"the time the members were elected, and what it would pro¬ 
bably cost them under the act of March last. The amounts can be ap¬ 
proximated with a fair degree of certainty. 

This Congress, as every one knows, is composed of 376 members— 
74 Senators, 292 Eepresentatives, and 10 Delegates—each of whom, 
under the act last mentioned, is entitled to receive annually, as com¬ 
pensation for his services, $7,500, and actual traveling expenses to 
and from the Capital once for each session. Assuming that the 
actual average traveling expenses of each member will not exceed 
$75, the Forty-third Congress wonld cost the people annually for 
these expenses and their compensation $2,848,200. It may be that 
the average traveling expenses will be more than $75 per capita, but 
I think not; indeed it is probable they will be less. 

Under the iirovisions of the law of July 28, 1866, the direct pay of 
the Forty-third Congress would amount to $1,880,000 annually ; and 
the annual allowance for stationery would amount to $47,000. I 
assume as ]>robable that the cost to the Government of the copies of 
the Congressional Globe and other books, together with other allow¬ 
ances to each member, under the law last mentioned, all of vdiich are 
cut off by the act of March last, was not less than $400 per capita; 
accoi'ding to which supposition, they would have cost $150,400. 
assume further, as j)robablc, that the average mileage per capita was 
not less annually tliau $700; and that the aggregate, therefore, for 
the Forty-third Congress would have been $263,200. 

The exact cost to the Government of the free matter that might 
and probably Avould have been sent and received by members of Con¬ 
gress cannot be estimated with much certainty. Assuming, however, 
that the Postmaster-General is iirobably correct Vrdien he estimates 
the free matter sent through the mails during the year 1872 at a cost 
to the Government of $3,500,000, (see Abridgment Message and Docu¬ 
ments, 1872-73,) and assuming that, by reason of the increase in the 
number of Eepresentatives undffi’ the last apportionment, there would 
not have been any diminution in the amount of free matter, and that 
the 376 members would have sent and received one-fifth of the 
amount, the expense to the Treasury on this account would have 
been $700,000; thus making the probable aggregate cost, or rather 


9 


what it would have been, to the Goveriimeut, under the law of 1866, 
amount to $3,040,600, or $192,400 more, as we have seen, than it would 
ho under the existing law. Or, in other w ords, the cost per capita of 
each member in the Forty-third Congress, under the old law, would 
have been $8,086, while under the act of March last it is only $7,575; 
thus showing, unless my approximations are excessive, an annual 
saving to the Treasury, on this account alone, of $192,400, as before 
stated. 

But the effect on the Treasury does not stop here. To the extent 
that the mend)ers of Congress exercised the franking privilege, to 
that extent did they drain the Treasury. Each member now, to the 
extent that ho sends and receives mail matter, co-ntribxites to, instead 
of draws from, the funds in the Treasury. According to the estimate 
I have made, the free matter sent and received annually by the 376 
members w'ould be $700,000, or $1,861 per capita. I believe it has been 
ascertained that the postage on the public documents each member 
receives annually, through the folding-room alone, will, if paid ac¬ 
cording to present rates, amount to $800. If we add to this postage 
on other books and XJapers, and seeds, &c., and on letters and letter 
packages sent and received by him, all of which heretofore passed 
free through the mails, w e will find the apx>roximation as to this very 
nearly accurate. But it is not probable members w ill burden the 
mails w ith books, &c., to the extent they formerly did. It is not im¬ 
probable, however, that the postage that will be i)aid on the matter 
sent and received by each member w'ill amount to $800. But w'e may 
estimate it wdth safety at $500. This Avill of course add annually 
$188,000 to the amount in the Treasury, w hich, added to the $192,400, 
on account of the 8ux)posed saving in exx)enditnres, makes a differ¬ 
ence in the annual balance of $380,400; the annual balance being that 
much greater than it w'ould have been if the Forty-third Congress had 
served, and been allow'ed compensation, mileage, stationery, &c., in 
inirsuance of the laws in force at the time it was chosen. This esti¬ 
mate, it must not be forgotten, has reference to the comxiensation of 
members of Congress only, and is designed to sIioav as nearly as i)Os- 
sible the probable difference of the exj^enditures of the Government in 
that behalf under the law of 1866 and that of 1873. 

There is yet another view of this subject that is in my opinion 
worthy of consideration, and to wdiich I invite attention. Let it be 
kept ill mind that the act of the 3d of March last is condemned and 
denounced because it imx)osos additional burdens on the people, be¬ 
cause it w^as a wuinton Avaste of the iieople’s money, &.c. Let it be 
remembered, also, that but for the total abolition of the franking 
l>rivilege the act increasing salaries could not have been passed. 
They could not have been increased to $6,500, as they were by the 
House amendment; miieli less could they have been raised to $7,500. 
I believe members w'ere generally satisfied with the compensation 
they received directly and incidentally under the law of 1866, and 
but very few, if any, desired to change that law, or even thought of 
changing it, until after the passage of the act abolishing a privilege 
that had long been enjoyed, and that w^as both convenient and use¬ 
ful—convenient to members, and useful, if not necessary, to the 
X)eoplc—a privilege the revocation of w^hich imposed quite a burden 
on each member in the way of postage, as w e have seen, and the 
abuse of which scarcely warranted its repeal. 

But if it is true that the abolition of the franking privilege super¬ 
induced the legislation that follow^ed it, and wdiich Ave are consider¬ 
ing, w'c ought to see to Avhat extent the burdens of the people liave 


10 


been inereased and to what extent there has been a reckless waste of 
their money. If it shall appear from a consideration of these two 
acts, and of their effect*on the Treasury, that they have resulted, or 
rather would result, beneffcially to the Treasury, and increase the 
annual balances therein, as I think they would, the conclusion be¬ 
comes almost irresisti))le that the complaints, censm’cs, and denunci¬ 
ations that have been uttered are unjust, however sincere may have 
been the convictions of those by whom they were uttered. 

In order that avo may ascertain the effect of the condemned legis¬ 
lation, considered in connection with that which preceded and super¬ 
induced it, I again iiiAdte attention to the report of the Postmaster- 
General for the years 1872-’73. If the cost of carrying the free mat¬ 
ter Avas $3,500,000, as he states, the repeal of the law that permitted 
this burden to be imposed on the Treasury manifestly saves that 
amount, or increases the annual balance to that extent. Again, if 
the annual saving to the GoA’ernuient, on account of the expenditures 
for the tAvo Houses of Congress, is, as I haA'e endcaA-ored to show, 
$380,400, it folloAVS that the annual increase Avill be $3,888,400. 
Deducting from this the increased annual expenditures on account of 
the increase in the salaries of the President of the United States, the 
judges of the Supreme Court, and others, which amount to $47,000, 
AA^e liaA^e a net annual saving of $3,841,400. But this balance will be 
further augmented by the amount of postage annually ])aid on mat¬ 
ter that passed free through the mails under the laAV of 1866. This 
amount cannot, of course, be definitely ascertained. It is not un¬ 
reasonable, hoAA^ever, to suppose that it Avill not be less than half the 
total of 1872. If so, it Avill be $1,750,000 annually, which, added to 
the $3,841,400, makes $5,591,400 as the probable annual increase in 
the balances in the Treasury by reason of the two acts, Avhich, I be- 
licA'e, Ave must from necessity connect, if aax desire to reach correct 
conclusions and do justice to those Avho are most concerned. I do 
not assume that the estimates I haA'c made are exact, but I liaA^e 
made them as nearly so as possible by what I consider fair aj)i)roxi- 
mations. If these are unreasonable in any instance, I am not aware 
of the fact. It may be that they are. If so, I Avill be obliged to any 
one who Avill point out the errors, and thus enable me to correct them, 
as I liaA'e no desire to deceiA’e myself, and certainly none to dcceiA^e 
others. 

Another consideration that influenced some, at least, of those who 
liaA'^e shared in the denunciation I haA^e characterized as unjust, was 
a desire to equalize the compensation of members by abolishing the 
mileage system that obtained prior to the passage of the act we are 
about to repeal. The irregularity or inequality of com])ensation re¬ 
sulting from that system will be perceived by any one Avho will take the 
trouble to examine a distance table, and calculate the mileage at 
forty cents per mile, betAveen the principal cities lying near to and 
remote from Washington. This inequality Avill be "the more appar¬ 
ent when it is remembered that the mileage was allowed at each session. 
It was unjust to members and equally unjust to the peoiile. 

But, Mr. Speaker, the retroactiA^e feature of the laAv is the one 
Avhich has been most furiously assailed ; andineonsequence of Avhich 
those who shared in its benefits, as well as those Avho faAmred its 
adoption, have been denouneedas thieves and robbers. It is difficult to 
perceive how, in view of all antecedent legislation of a similar char- 
a eter, and in view of the position of those who participated in it and 
shared in its benefits, such epithets can be justified. It is insisted that 
the rate of compensation being established by law at the time the 


11 


members o± tlio Forty-seeoud Con^-ress were elected, there was a coii- 
tiaot on the part of the latter to serve for that com])ensation, and 
that the act increasing: it was a felony; and further, that all who re- 
ceived the increase received stolen ])roperty, and are felons. 

^ ''V'. passing, Mr. Speaker, that this argument and de- 

nnnciation apply Avith eipial force to the ])resent and the last Con¬ 
gress, and fixes the alleged crime on the former as clearly as on tlu' 
latter. For if it Avas a felony to receive the benefits of the act, for the 
reason given, the law that fixed the rate of compensation Avhen the 
forty-second Congress Avas elected,being in force at the time the 
forty-third AA'as chosen, the conclusion, if just, is eipuilly aiiplicable 
to both; and Avhatever of Avroug Avas done ninst be shared by both; 
the only difference lieiug in the amount of the benetits reci'^ved. But 
It has been further insisted that the turpitude of the act* is aggra¬ 
vated by the fact that the increase Avas made at the close of the'^l^ast 
session of the Congress; and hence that there can be no doubt as to 
the criminal inotiA'e on the part of those concerned. 

This argument, Mr. Speaker, if argument it maybe called, impliedly 
admits the poAver of Congress to ffx the coiujiensation, but ques¬ 
tions the right to exercise it at the close of one of its sessions. Indeed, 
1 do not suppose there is any one Avho has read the iirovision of the 
Constitution as to this that Avill pretend to doubt the power. I do 
not think that any of those A\dio A'oted against the measure eA^en, in 
all of its^ stages, pretend to doubt the poAA^er that AA'as exercised. 
What difference, then, can it make as to the time at AA'hich it Avas ex¬ 
ercised f If the Forty-third Congress may ffx a value upon the services 
that mayor shall be rendered by the Forty-fourth, as is impliedly 
admittcMl by the argument referred to, may it not with greater pro- 
])riety ffx the Amine of its oavu services after they shall liaA’e been 
rendered ? If not, Avhy not ? Is it not reasonable to suppose that it 
is easier to ffx a A'alue on services nunhired than upon those that are 
to be rendered ? It unqiiestionaldy is; and especially is this true 
Avlien those to be rendered are unknoAA ii, or, at least, uncertain, and 
are rendered more uncertain by reason of onr Avant of knowledge as 
1 o their quantity and inqiortance. In the one case Ave have an oppor¬ 
tunity to consider and pass upon all the facts necessary to a just con- 
<dusiou, and in the other Ave are left to mere conjecture as to all of 
them. The ])olicy of exercising, and not the right to exercise, the 
])OAver can be safely questioned ; and there can be no doubt that it is 
safer and more appropriate to ffx it after they are rendered than 
before, and Avhile they are merely conjectural. 

But, as before stated, all the i)recedents that bear on this l)ranch of 
the question are in harmony Avith the course pursued or action taken 
by the Forty-secoml Congress. The latest occurred durijig the 
Thirty-ninth Congress. That body, on the last day of its first session, 
July 28, 1806, jjassed an act by Avhich the compensation of its mem¬ 
bers was increased from $3,000 to $5,000 per annum, and its provisions 
Avere retroactive, just as are those of the act Ave propose to repeal. 

In both the Senate and House of Representatives there were at 
that time a fcAv prominent democrats and many prominent republi¬ 
cans, some of Avhoni Avere members of the Forty-second Congress, 
and a feAV of Avhom are members of the Forty-third. All of them, 
Avithout exception, if I am not misinformed, took the increased com- 
])ensation, retrospectiA'e as Avell as prospective, and kept it. Among 
them Ave find the names of Senators Fessenden of Blaine, Sumner 
and Wilson of Massachusetts, Harris and Morgan of Ncav York, 
BuckaleAv and CoAvan of l*ennsylvania, Saulsbury of DehiAvare, Cres- 


12 


well and Joliiisoii of Maryland, Hendri(3ks and Lane of Indiana, and 
James Gntlirie of Kentncky; and Eepresentatives Hooper, Hanks, 
Boutwell, Washburn, and Dawes of Massaclinsetts, Brooks, Kay- 
mond, Conkling, and Goodyear of New York, Randall, Myers, Kelley, 
Stevens, Mercur, and Scofield of Pennsylvania, Niblaek, Kerr, Julian, 
and Orth of Indiana, and Farnsworth, Washburn, and Marshall of 
Illinois, besides many others, e(pially honorable and worthy, whose 
names I must omit. x 

Another precedent is found in the action taken by the Thirty- 
fourth Congress at its second session, and within two weeks of its 
adjournment without day. The hill providing for an increase of the 
<3ompensation was introduced by Senator Butler, of South Carolina. 
It passed the Senate and House on t he loth day of August, 1856, and 
was approved by the President on the day following. It increased 
the comx)ensation of members from |8 per day to $3,000 per annum, 
and allowed the latter rate from the beginning of the hrst session. 
Although Senators and Representatives diliered as to the })ropriety 
of the act, no one questioned the authority, none refused to accept 
the increased compensation, and none of them returned it to the 
Treasury. 

Among the distinguished Senators who participated in that crime 
we find the names of Judah P. Benjamin and John Slidell of Louisi¬ 
ana, Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson of INIassachusetts, John J. 
Crittenden and John B. Thom})son of Kentucky, Benjamin Wade 
and George E. Pugh of Ohio, James C. Jones and John Bell of Ten¬ 
nessee, Hamilton Fish and William H. Seward of New York, James 
A. Bayard and John ^I. Clayton of Delaware, Henry S. Geyer of Mis¬ 
souri, Andrew P. Butler of South'Carolina, and Lyman Trumbull and 
Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, besides others I might mention were 
it necessary. 

In the House, too, at that time, were many of those who Avere 
honored by the people, and Avhose characters have hitherto dehed re¬ 
proach. There Avere Kennett, Porter, Lindlcy,01iA^er, Miller, Pheli)s, 
and Cam the rs of my oAvn State; Banks, DeWitt, Hall, and Burlin¬ 
game of Massachusetts; King, Dickson, Spinner, and JMorgan of New 
York; Pennnigton of Now Jersey; GroAv, Packer, and CoAnale, of 
Pennsyhmnia; Letcher of Virginia, Ruffin of North Carolina, Keitt, 
Brooks, and Orr of South Carolina ; Cobb and Ste])hens of Georgia, 
Giddings and Wade of Ohio, Undei Avood and Humphrey Marshall 
of Kentucky, Zollicotfer and Etheridge of Tennessee, besides many 
others. If a.ny of those A\dio IniA'e hitherto honored these Represent¬ 
atives and Senators desire to knoAV hoAv they A^oted and spoke fui 
the proposition to increase their compensation, they can ascertain by 
(ionsulting the Congressional Globe for the second session of the 
Thirty-fourth Congress. The fact, hoAvever, that they receiA'cd and 
appropriated it to their oavu use is of greater im])ortanee. 

still another and earlier precedent may be found in the action 
taken by the Senate and House during the first session of the Fif¬ 
teenth Congress. It increased the com]>ensation from $(5 ])er day 
to $1,500 ])er annum. The act Avas ap})roA'ed IMarch 19,1818, ami, 
like the obnoxious act of the 3d of March last, Avas retrospectiA'c; 
that is, it alloAved ‘n)ack pay” at the increased rate, for a little more 
than three months, and forAA ard pay, if I may be alloAA ed the expres¬ 
sion, for the remainder of the two’years. That Congress Avas in ses¬ 
sion, all told, about seven months. The total compensation of its 
members, at the rate fixed by laAv Avlum they Avere ehos<‘n, Avould 
huA-e amounted to about $1,26(); and at the rate estaldished by them- 


13 


selves alter their election, it amounted top,000 ; in addition to ^Yllich 
they were allowed mileage and certain perquisites. Thiis, it will be 
seen, they more than doubled the compensation allowed at the time 
of their election; and it is said that each Senator, Representative, 
and Delegate accei)ted and retained the retrospective as well as the 
prospective allowance; not knowing, I presume, or, if knowing, dis- 
regjirding the fact that he was committing a theft and a robbery. 

If we consult the Senate and House Journals of that period, we 
tind among the members of that Congress some of the purest as well 
as most honored j)atriots and statesmen our country has produced. 
In the Senate, among other distinguished names, Ave tind those of 
Rufus King, John W. Eppes, James Barbour, David J. Morrill, and 
John J. Crittenden. In the House of Representatives, we tind those 
of Henry Clay, Nathaniel Ruggles, Ebenezer Huntington, William 
LoAvndes, William A. BurAvell, James Pleasants, Joseph Desha, 
George Robertson, Richard M. Johnson, and William Henry Harrison. 
These men have all passed aAvay. Here and there, all over the land, 
in the stately and costly monuments that liaA^e been erected in honor 
of their memories, are to be found evidences of the fact that they 
were thought Avorthy to be remembered Avith the patriots and states¬ 
men and heroes of our country ; and it sounds strange to hear then) 
called “thieA^es and robbers,’’ or salary grabbers and rogues,” If I 
shall be told that no such epithets as these liaA-e been applied to 
these sages and heroes, but that they apply, and liaA'e Ijeen applied, 
to the members of the Forty-second Congress alone, I beg to be in¬ 
formed as to the peculiar facts that justify the application to the 
latter and not the former. What is it that constitutes the difference 
in the moral (juality of these respective acts ? If all those who 
faAn)red the legislation that is denounced, or opposed it and after- 
Avard shared in its benefits, are “thieA^es and robbers,” how is it pos¬ 
sible for the members of the Fifteenth, Thirty-fourth and Thirty- 
ninth Congresses to escape the same condemnation ? If these ques¬ 
tions can be satisfactorily ansAvered by those Avhose duty it is to 
ansAver them, they surely Avill not refuse to do so ; and If they can¬ 
not, it necessarily folloAvs that they in their efforts and desires to 
injure others liaAm injured theraselA'cs. I apprehend that none of 
them Avill attempt to accept the logical results of the position they 
luiA'e assumed ; but they may, and if they merit success I hope they 
may achieA e it. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I liaAm not adA^erted to the fact that others 
liaA'e set us precedents that sustain us in Avha t Ave did, for the purpose 
of justifying a Avrong, if wrong Avas committed. Crime can not be 
justified by precedents. If the acts of July 28,1866, August 16,1856, 
and March 19, 1818, Avere thefts and robberies, or moral Avrongs, that of 
March 3, 1873, Avas equally Avrong ; and if they Avere right the latter 
is right. The moral quality of each is the same, except so far as it 
may be made to differ by reason of the motiAms that produced it; and 
this quality Avas fixed the moment the act Avas performed, and it 
could not be changed by any subsequent act. I liaAm before stated 
that I have been unable to discover either legal or moral AAU’ong in 
the act increasing the salaries, and Avhich Ave are about to repeal. 
Other members think differently, and pronounce it both a legal and 
mortil outrage. They may be right and I Avrong. They, or some of 
them at least, have indicated their vieAA’s by returning their increased 
back pay to the Treasury, and by retaining their increased foiAvard 
pay. I liaA'e indicated mine by refusing to return either. Those 
Avho drcAA" the increased pay from the Treasury must, at the thne 


14 


they (lid bo, and during inoBt of the time tliey ridaiiuMl it, have 
believed that they had both a legal and a moral riglit to the projierty 
of 'which they thus acquired possession. It is uncharitable to believe 
otherwise. But, subsequently, by some means they became convinced 
that they were mistaken, and from time to time, during a period of 
almost nine months, as light beamed upon their pathways, they 
brought forth fruits meet for repentance by returning to the Treas¬ 
ury the amounts they had respectively drawn. This was not only 
right, but it became an imperative duty, so soon as they discovered 
or became convinced of their error in this transaction. 

Each of them virtually admits that he had become satisfied of this, 
and that he desired to make reparation ; but none discloses the argu¬ 
ment that carried conviction to his mi ml and heart. This, had it 
been done, might have carried conviction to the minds and i-esulted 
in the conversion of the hearts of others who have not gone and done 
likewise. What the ](otent argument was that worked such im¬ 
portant results is left to that most unsatisfactory source of informa¬ 
tion—mere conjecture. In this I will not indulge, in relation to a 
matter ofsuch importance. Is it probable, Mr. Speaker, that public 
opinion could have been the convincing power ? The moral charac¬ 
ter of the act we all know and admit did not depend upon public 
opinion, but upon its inlmrent qualities, and had to be, and must be, 
determined by them alone. But, sir, I lieg permission to ask tlum^ 
with whom I have honestly ditlered, and Avho have as honestly 
differed with me, on this subject, what theh’ convictions would have 
been, and what their action in the premises would have been, had a 
majority of their constituents and of the public press approved and 
not condemned the actf And, further, had it been generally .ap¬ 
proved and commended, Avonld they have been convinced by the 
other arguments and consider.ation8 that were addressed to their minds 
that it was their duty to return to the Triaasury the several sums they 
did return ? Much depends on the answers each may be able to give 
to his own conscience in reply to these questions. At that tribunal 
.alone can the case be properly tried. If he stands ac(|uitted and jus- 
tiffed there, jiopular disai)probation and denunciation will b(‘. robbed 
of half their terrors; ami if condemned or censured, ])opular conli- 
dence and popular applau.se, though tlu'y be unbounded, will be a 
barren if not a bitter triunqdi. 

And to those Avhose clamor .and denunciations have tilled the land 
for months I here propound .similar (pie.stions, and beg that they give 
themselves a fair trial at the b.ar of their own consciences ; that they 
take into consideration and calmly examine all the facts and circuni- 
stances th.at bear upon the (questions as they really exist, and ask 
their consciences to tell them what tlmy would have done had they 
occupied the ])laces of tho.se they so bitterly condemn. Should they 
by these faithful monitors ])e assured that they would not have ac¬ 
cepted either the back or the forward pay, they will have the conso- 
l.ation of knowing that they are, at least in the opinion of that court, 
better and more honest men than Clay and Crittenden and J<ffin.son 
and Harrison, or any of the other i)atriots and statesmen with Avhom 
they Avere associated or by Avhoni they Avere succtieded. 

In conclusion, Mr. Spe.aker, permit me to repeat that it is my inten¬ 
tion, and for the reason given, to A'ote for the bill under consideration, 
admitting, as before, that the vieAvsand arguments that controlled my 
action may lum> led me into gihwous enm-s; and if they liaA’e, Avhicii 
I by no means .adiuit, a.sking no extenuation therefor, e'xce])t such as 
is due to human fallibility. 


o 



< 




A 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 028 001 881 8' S 






. > V-. 




. "V 

■' 'i’l 

. I*' 

■ ' )';<■ 

. i 

' 

t -y-hi 


K\t 


■ .. Vi 




V • 




• -u-i 


V 4 '^ 




t' 


4 




) 







